32. From the Notes Verbale sent to the Respondent State, it is clear that the Respondent State had been given the opportunity to make its submissions on the issue of Admissibility, and in particular, to respond to the Complainants submissions on same. 33.Rule 117(4) provides that: the Commission shall decide on the issue of Admissibility if the State Party fails to send a written response within three (3) months from the date of notification of the text of Communication. The Communication was first attached and sent to the Respondent State with a Note Verbale dated 5 June 2006. 34. In the absence of any submission from the Respondent State, the Commission hereby makes a decision on the Admissibility of the Communication in line with its Rules 117(1), (2) and (4). 35. The Commission holds that on the basis of the Complainants' submission, all the requirements of Article 56(1) to (7) of the African Charter governing the Admissibility of Communications have been sufficiently fulfilled. 36. For these reasons, the Commission declares this Communication Admissible. Merits Preliminary Objection by the Respondent State 37. Both the Complainants' and the Respondent State did not adhere strictly to the timeframes provided for by the Commission in accordance with its Rules of Procedure. Notwithstanding, the Commission extended its own deadlines in order to allow both parties submit in accordance with the relevant Rules of Procedure. The Complainants took advantage of these extensions and made their Submissions on Admissibility. However, the Respondent State despite several extensions and accompanying reminders failed to submit. In line with its rule 117(4), the Commission made its decision on the Admissibility of the Communication during its 41st Ordinary Session held from 16 to 30 May 2007, in Accra, Ghana and informed both parties subsequently. 38. The Respondent State raised an objection that the Commission did not hear them during the Admissibility stage. According to the Respondent State, the procedure leading to the decision on Admissibility therefore lacked legitimacy. The Commission had erred in sending conflicting information to the state regarding the status of the Communication. This error was however corrected in good time after it was discovered. The Commission finds the allegations made by the Respondent State unwarranted since on 12 August 2009, the Respondent State had indicated it was ready to make its submissions on Merits and as such it requested for a further extension of time to 'enable the government to finalise its submissions.' This request was granted by the Commission on 6 May 2013. What is more, under the old Rules of Procedure, Rule 117(1) in particular, the Commission had the discretion to fix the time limit for submissions but it should ensure that the matter does not drag for too long. The Respondent State objection also fails to show how the procedure has been contravened in specific detail. The Complainants' in the view of the Commission have met the technical requirements set in order for the Communication to be admissible. No observations have been made either by the Complainant itself or by the Respondent State to contravene the decision arrived at. For these reasons, the Respondent State's preliminary objection cannot stand and the Commission will therefore proceed with the Merits of this Communication. The Complainants' Submissions on the Merits 39. The Complainants submits that: the death penalty is per se in violation of Article 4 of the African Charter; moreover, the imposition of the death penalty in the Respondent State's jurisdiction is arbitrary and is therefore in violation of Article 4 of the African Charter; the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman or degrading in contravention of Articles 1 and 5 of the African Charter; the specific manner in which condemned persons in the Respondent State's jurisdiction are executed in secret after clemency has been denied, without informing the family or legal representatives of the condemned person is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 5 of the African Charter; the manner in which the warrant of 5